Forum:Disambiguation Standardization
How should we format disambiguation pages? For a long time, they were written as such: *''Article name'' - Category in Game name E.g. *Boxes (Cheese Dreams) - Interactive objects in Cheese Dreams: New Moon Then we started adding category links to the category part of the sentence. After that, however, RSK began changing the disambig pages to this format (with no category link): *''Article name'', category in Game name E.g. *Boxes (Cheese Dreams), interactive objects in Cheese Dreams: New Moon This format is the same as Wikipedia's for disambig pages. And there are lots of variants in between, such as including periods at the end of the sentence, adding "in the game" before the game name, and so on. I feel that we should standardize our disambig format, in order to remove confusion among both editors and readers. I personally support the Wikipedia format. -- 17:04, December 14, 2013 (UTC) Discussion I agree with Ayernam. I think it should be the Wikipedia format purely because it looks better and more formal. 17:47, December 14, 2013 (UTC) I also agree. It needs to be standardized regardless of what form we pick anyway. Although, is it ok if the categories are linked to? I guess it's ok if they're not, but I personally think it is better if categories are linked to. 20:03, December 14, 2013 (UTC) Of course we need standardization. I find the hyphen one (X - Y) is better, however, I'm fine with both versions. I vote for for the second one. -- 20:13, December 14, 2013 (UTC) The two styles are similar to each other, but it is a good idea to maintain consistency where possible. I think with hyphens, it's a lot easier to confuse the case - I think some people were trying to capitalize the first letter after the hyphen while some don't, but in the case of a comma, you can tell it's going to be part of finishing the top sentence. I was trying to clean up the disambiguations, since a lot of them had many links that were repeatedly copied and pasted. The use of category linking, for example, was repeated down the entire length of the page. Disambiguations are not articles; they don't need to link to every definition on the first mention. They mainly serve to guide the reader to the page they are looking for by listing the number of articles we have with similar titles. Yes, some of the links to the game pages were still in tact, but for the most part, we should minimize the number of unnecessary links that don't lead to an article relating to the disambiguation page's title. It doesn't need to be treated the same way as an article, because it's not. 22:59, December 14, 2013 (UTC) :@RSK: Both examples Ayernam has presented don't have links to categories. Would it be okay to link the first occurrence of a game component (such as hazard) to the proper category, then leave all other occurrences of the same word unlinked? I'm assuming you're voting for option 2 (note: this sentence is in no way related to the previous one). -- 17:59, December 30, 2013 (UTC) ::I personally would avoid linking to categories within the page altogether, but if you really feel it's necessary, then only the first mention. My support is for the second option because the points are branched off completions of the starting clause. ("Jkewafjew may refer to:" and then the points finish off with (", a hazard in KFJK.) This is much different from bullet points in an Enemies or Hazards section because each point isn't completing a sentence that starts off that particular section the way a disambig does. 19:56, December 30, 2013 (UTC) :::Oh, okay. I won't link categories. May I close to the forum posting? -- 23:38, December 30, 2013 (UTC) ::::Okay. 01:18, December 31, 2013 (UTC)